Delhi HC grants bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor in Rs. 66.51 crores money laundering case

Case Details: Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement - [2022] 145 taxmann.com 203 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
  • Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate, Ms Stuti Gujral, Ms Priti Verma, Shaurya Singh, Prabhav Rali & Abhishek Pati, Advocates for the Appellant.
  • Anupam S. Sharma, Special counsel, Prakarsh Airan, Ms Harpreet Kalsi, Ripudaman Sharma, Abhishek Batra, Nishant Chaudhary & Anurag Verma, Advocates for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the accused applicant for bail, Rana Kapoor, was implicated in the present criminal complaint filed by the respondent/ED and arrayed as accused no. 2, and the investigating officer consciously did not arrest the applicant while he arrested the co-accused Gautam Thapar and the applicant participated in investigation as his three statements under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 were recorded.

The applicant pleaded that he was not arrested during the investigation and was available during the investigation, and had extended full cooperation in the investigation besides other grounds. The respondent filed a reply to the bail application. The respondent also filed an additional reply whereby he objected to the grant of bail on the basis that since the applicant had not “physically surrendered” to the Trial Court and as such applicant was not entitled to file bail application.

Further, the respondent also did not allege non-participation and/or non-co-operation of the applicant in the investigation, and the investigating officer did not apply for custody of the applicant, that applicant is entitled to bail in view of observations/legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil.

Further, the applicant was primarily not seeking bail on merit but on basis of observation made by the Supreme Court in para no 65 of Satinder Kumar Antil decision and as such applicant is not required to pass the test of section 45 of PMLA.

High Court Held

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that there was no force in argument advanced by the learned Special Counsel for the respondent (ED) that the applicant before grant of bail required to pass test of 45 of PMLA. Section 45 provides that offences punishable under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable also provides stringent conditions in grant of bail.

The position would have been different had the applicant been arrested during the investigation. The investigating agency consciously preferred not to arrest the applicant during the investigation or post-filing of the charge sheet.

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi allowed the present bail application on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court on certain conditions.